First off: Uh, what institutions did I cite? Laws =/= institutions. There are environmental protection laws, and then there is this whole separate thing called an agency. The law is the independent variable here, as it can exist without the agency.

Second off: By your logic: there are "nasty operatives" in the free market, and there are "nasty operatives" in regulation. Yet, the "nasty operatives" in the free market shouldn't be used as evidence of deregulation not working, but the "nasty operatives" in regulatory agencies, which are put in place by the "nasty operatives" in the free market, should be used as evidence that regulation is bad?

EDIT: And, I've maxed out my use of quotations for the next three months.

Before he admits that his stance is "just cynical" you would have to admit that your opening post contains a gargantuan false dichotomy. What's interesting is that you'd think "Doc" Paul-iday would be toeing the libertarian line on this one, but he actually isn't.

To FearTheReaper: livertarian is totally on topic, gramps! Don't forget about NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY! Toot toot, all aboard! Oh wait! Doesn't NAFTA superhighway paranoia fundamentally contradict opposition to further federal stricture on borders?

Hmm. "You keep saying zis word, but I do not theenk it mean what you think it mean."

Stop saying things are some kind of superlative "joke" when such a statement is demonstrably (even with what's already been given as evidence within this same thread!) false. Did Microsoft go out of business whilst I slept? Does it really look like Sun microsystems was devoured by the moon? Point the first.

So you would seriously lay claim that OSHA is corrupt and ineffective? I'd lay odds that any body functioning in the service of the necessary federal business restrictions listed are not statistically corrupt or ineffective. You may make serious counterclaim as to the possibly abysmal space the bell curve for that currently encompasses, but that's outside the scope of this thread, no? Point the second.

"We live in a world where good information is more accessible than ever before, and yet we still think the government ought to be the supplier and enforcer." Your words. Excuse me? What? First of all, for the same reason that "good" information is more accessible than ever, the opposite is also true. Though you've already colored the rhetoric by using the word "good," instead of the possibly more descriptive "valuable" or "worthwhile," I can still only give you a choice of possibilities as to how we describe the opposite here. It could be "bad," "evil," or "worthless" information. This kind of information is getting the same boost as your so-called "good" information. Consider Furries, or suicide cults, or anorexia cults. However, consider the following way in which your statement is also wrong; most of the people posting here believe in freedom of information, in fact so much so that we grudgingly accept Furries, and suicide cults, and anorexia cults, while simultaneously trying to help and inform people trapped by harmful Internet communities. None of us want the government to be in control of the Internet, matey, and I'm not sure where in your tom-foolish libertarian worldview you got the impression that a group of mostly varyingly-leftish Internet would-be or actual pundits would support government restriction of the Internet. And surely not the enforcer, man! Come ON!

Ultimately: what we3_pirate said.

Man... no love here. I did not mean to try to turn this thread into an RP stump speech, but I will not back down from endorsing the guy as the only honest talker out there. He is far from perfect, and I do not share his views on some things, but where he's right is where it all counts.

So what is so great about interventionist government? Alll the great programs cited on this board have many flaws and unintended consequences. Free markets are not supposed to be perfect. It is naive to think that any amount of regulation would truly make the world a better place. The best chance we have is to get these fucking "leaders" out of our lives and learn to live with each other, not try to use the sytem to beat the other half down.

I became a libertarian because I have a daughter whose generaton is fucked as of right now. More government is not the answer. I defy anyone to prove me wrong on this.

You point to paradox, right? We can deconstruct any argument into a stalemate if we wanted to. I am trying to keep things simple: Big government has not stopped corporate malfeasance, pollution, laziness, drug abuse, or border hopping. What is the solution?

You are hopeless.

On that last point you are probably correct. So why don't we start with a candidate that might do something as whacky as breaking DHS back into its component overlaps with existing federal (i.e., Constitutional) law enforcement? Or somebody who won't lose us billions of dollars in debt to China, police action cost in the Middle East, (yes I realize "Doc" wants us out of the ME) and the economic nightmare that would be our national re-structuring to withstand the ravages of a return to the gold standard. Or somebody who wouldn't throw our country to the wolfish state of pre-Roe v. Wade and pre-Brown v. Board of Education. Or, hey, how about somebody who might actually be able to help heal national issues and deeply held feelings about race relations, instead of somebody who has (at best!) highly dubious thoughts on the subject.

Is this going anywhere? Or is Sisyphus gonna push his rock back up to the top?

I will no longer mention RP in future postings. Too hot a button to push.

And you are right about wearing it on the sleeve. This was an emotional response.

I will, however, continue to represent some idea of small government.

Hurrrrmmm. Let's see here...

First off, don't accuse me of rhetorical solipsism. Seriously. Do not.

Well, so big government has not stopped, etc., you state. Okay, fine. I'm going to be really generous and grant you that point. So, in rebuttal I would ask you the following:

1) Have you ever been fishing or hunting? Did you catch and/or shoot them all?

2) Do Highway Patrol officers catch all reckless/inebriated drivers?

3) Do homicide departments in police forces apprehend all murderers and rapists?

4) In 2) and 3) above, can you see how it could be harmful if government did less in these instances?

In the wake of China's woes over exported goods like poisonous toothpaste, dogfood, and toxic children's toys, it is astounding that you hold to some claim that we can do without an agency such as the FDA. So again I would argue that we should probably go with a candidate who suggests the greatest chance of being somebody who would not only make these agencies more transparent (hint: Google "Obama" and "transparency," and click on the links that look like they lead to legislation) but could, possibly, maybe do away with a lot of the disgracefully wasteful legislation of the past seven years.

I prefer "The Little Government That Could".

Well, with that whole corrupt "OSHA" thing, we kind of mandated a policy that says we'd rather not kill people whilst manufacturing something.

Machines that once ripped fingers and arms off were made safer so that the U.S. Worker could actually still have full use of his/her appendages while not at work.

I think that's pretty great.

The EPA told huge steel companies, and other manufacturers in Cleveland that they weren't allowed to dump toxic waste into the Cuyahoga River anymore, it hasn't caught fire in at least a decade or two.

i think that's pretty great.

The EPA also told medical waste companies that they aren't allowed to dump medical waste into Lake Erie anymore. The Lake itself has cleaned up over the years, we have a long way to go, but it is an improvement. Fish kills aren't nearly as common as they used to be and it's been a long time since hypodermic needles washed up on our beaches.

i think that's pretty great.

I don't think anyone reasonable would argue that any solution will cure all of society's ills. But I highly doubt going back to unregulated capitalism would help instead of hurting. If you really think so, then why not go even further and argue for removing laws altogether? After all, those things that prevent us from going, "Hey, I don't like my neighbors noisy kids" *blam blam blam* limit our freedoms, and they don't stop murder from happening.

Okay, the "future generations" reasoning is a bit heavy on the pathos, but is he really hopeless? I honestly think he's just focusing on the wrong fucking areas of supposed government "waste." He sets his crosshairs on agencies that keep metal out of hot dogs and green sludge out of his daughter's drinking water when he would not only have a fatter but a bigger target were he to go after waste via military action or draconian micromanagement of things like federal funding for sex ed and the like. (Despite the fact that the Bush 43 admin has been cutting funding for a lot of sex ed programs, the change-over to abstinence-only pamphlets still cost us plenty) Those, to me, would have been higher priorities for the 19-year-old know-it-all libertarian version of me. (Kept the know-it-all, lost the libertarian)

Gosh, I hope you don't expect me to think you can tar me with this brush. I think I've been completely rational and reasonable yet you don't seem to be addressing too many of my points. You'll note that a lot of them don't have anything to do with Paul, but rather his stated positions on, y'know, stuff.

Or the Department of Homeland Security, which is essentially the same damn thing as the Department of Defense, right?